I am watching parts of the
recorded Friday Session in CCK11 right now... This is
Stephen Downes picture from the session:
According to this picture:
Unity, coordination, closed, distributive=
Group
Diversity, autonomy, openess, bridges, connective=
Network
As usual, I don´t understand much but one thing I think I know for sure:
In reality, groups and networks co-exist and depend upon each other.
I would like to compare it to an equilibrium reaction in chemistry.
If you want to manipulate an equilibrum reaction you should know that the system will balance your manipulation.
How??
Let´s pretend the picture shows molecules in an equilibrium reaction.
Now you want less "network molecules" in the reaction vessel so you remove them. But what happens? The "group molecules" start to react to form more "network molecules" to restore equilibrium in the vessel. And if you try to remove the "group molecules" the "network molecules" will form new "group molecules".
Balance.
And what has this got to do with school and learning at all?
Well, as I see it, traditional education environment is clearly built on groups
However, networks is still formed in this environment. Informal network structure becomes important for example at lunch-break, in between lessons, in project based learning and after school.
The formal groups and informal networks for learning depends on each other to exist. They also balance and form each other.
What I would like to see is this shift
from...
- The students being first of all a part of a group (a class, same age, studying the same things, same room) but are at the same time allowed their autonomy and to form meaningful networks. (Worked well in the industrial age)
to...
- The students first of all build their personal learning environment and personal networks but are at the same time, allowed to take part in strict and formal groups and meaningful group events. (Will work fine, I think, in this postmodern, information, digital age we live in)
What would this shift lead to?
My guess is, many students would highly value to take part in formal group events when given the opportunity.
Why? Well, to balance the "group-network equilibrium" for learning and because it is luxury for the student. It is a shortcut for learning and connecting and the door to a formal group is hopefully (public schools I am thinking of) open to anyone, not only to the fittest, most connective.
I don´t see networks as being open and groups as being closed. Groups are either open or closed. Networks are neither, but has invisible walls and unwritten rules that can effectively lock non-members out. Open, formal groups can give young students a chance to practice and to get tools and basic skills to manage the invisible walls and to understand the unwritten rules of complex networks in society.
What happens if you remove all opportunities to take part in formal strict group sessions in school and only focus on autonomy and networking? Well, my guess is that other strict formal groups will then be formed to fill the empty space. In the worst scenario this will be non-democratic destructive groups. At best it will be democratic, friendly, spaces, like the facebookgroup in cck11 replacing Moodle in former MOOCs.
The grabbing of the Mic
Seldom is someone grabbing the mic in Elluminate sessions in CCK11 when asked to. Why? Well, I think, for example, my generation is trained to do the opposite in a classroom environment. And Elluminate reminds me of a formal classroom environment.
Taking the lead for a while, in a group of people, is a scary thing to do for academic schooled people, who are trained to sit still and listen to information and directions from the leader in a traditional formal classroom environment. (It takes practice, autonomy and scaffolds to change and it is harder with old dogs too)
My students are better at this than I am.
Hopefully, future students will become even better:)
 |
| Canadian Geese on the wing by Brian Guest cc (nd-nc-sa) |
